Share this:

Like this:

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

Since we have an abundance of “right-wingers” on the court, what exactly is wrong with having a “leftist?” Should those who do not share the poltical philosophy of Scalia, Thomas and company not be allowed to have someone represent them? And please don’t use “leftist” as some kind of epithet for someone you don’t like. Explain what you mean.

Since we have an abundance of “right-wingers” on the court, what exactly is wrong with having a “leftist?”

Because “right wingers” on the Court believe in following the law, not making it up. The “left wingers” on the court believe that any amount of judicial malfeasance is okay if it secures a political desirable result. Roe v. Wade, q.v.

Jay- THis quote from the linked article clearly states why the Orthodox Rabbis are opposing Kagan.

“It is clear from Ms. Kagan’s record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the ‘supremacy’ of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah,” the rabbis said in the statement.

THe question of this post is whether groups would oppose a LDS nominee. I would suppose a few would. IF the hypothetical LDS nominee were to back abortion, “radical” gay rights etc… myself, and many other, LDS people would oppose the nominee as well.

Mark D, there are many Court observers who claim that there are conservatives who make up law and don’t follow precedent, etc. And if you study the many, many court decisions over the last few decades that is certainly true in some cases. The problem is that the worst, the very worst, case of “making up a right” that didn’t exist took place in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, and it has stained the reputation of the court ever since then. I took a pre-law class in 1982, and even back then the very liberal professor I had said Roe v. Wade was the least defensible case he had ever seen in the history of the court. He said that, even though he sympathized with the court’s desire to legalize abortion, the decision was so poorly reasoned that it would never be accepted by the American public. And here we are nearly three decades later and my professor was correct.

“He said that, even though he sympathized with the court’s desire to legalize abortion, the decision was so poorly reasoned that it would never be accepted by the American public.”

I actually agree with the philosophical argument made by Blackmun in the decision. However, I think that the problem is that the court settled the issue in a sweeping manner. This approach tends to undermine the prospect for compromise and discussion.

Certainly there are people on the fringes who will oppose the most mainstream of nominees, whether they tilt right or left. Of course, sometimes fringe and mainstream trade places over time as happened with racial discrimination, is happening with gay marriage, and will happen with marijuana legalization. Opposition to torture used to be mainstream but is becoming a fringe position. A mormon who was instrumental in that transition is now on the 9th circuit, so while being catholic or jewish has recently been preferred for supreme court picks, there’s no reason a mormon couldn’t be nominated. Of course they would be protested, since every nominee is protested.

The courts certainly perform a vital function of establishing common law of the sort that is subsidiary to legislation. Sometimes the legislative branch doesn’t give them much in the way of guidance and they are forced to decide questions of enormous significance based only on general legal principles.

The Supreme Court is faced with just such a situation in the In Re Bilksi case about the boundaries of patent law. Whatever they decide will have a far reaching economic impact on a matter of great controversy.

The difference here, however, is that if Congress is not happy with the decision the court makes, they can perform their constitutional duty and make the law clear enough so that the Court isn’t forced to do their job for them. It is a proper matter for legislation and the legislature should decide. And they can, and whatever they decide will preempt the courts opinion in this matter.

The same goes for constitutional law. The courts have no business overturning state and federal laws unless they do violence to the text of the Constitution. It is the job of the legislative branch to fill out the details, by legislation, of how the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions are actually to be implemented.

The the will of the people (by way of their elected representatives) with regard to how the constitution should be implemented in real life should take precedence over the philosophical inclinations of unelected “wise men”. Federal judges should not be making social policy. They should fairly interpret the law and only overturn legislative statutes when the latter do unquestionable injustice to the text of the Constitution.